ASP3: This is John Galt
Ideally, the actor playing John Galt in Atlas Shrugged Part 3 will appear to have jumped right off of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. However, in our quest to find the perfect John Galt, some tough choices may have to be made. That's where you come in.
If you had to choose, which would you consider the number one priority in casting John Galt?
A. As long as the actor looks and acts like John Galt, I don't care what his personal beliefs are.
B. The actor needs to possess a deep understanding of, and passion for, Ayn Rand's ideas first and foremost.
Leave your answer in the comments below.
If you had to choose, which would you consider the number one priority in casting John Galt?
A. As long as the actor looks and acts like John Galt, I don't care what his personal beliefs are.
B. The actor needs to possess a deep understanding of, and passion for, Ayn Rand's ideas first and foremost.
Leave your answer in the comments below.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Although I'd much rather prefer an actor who we've known to have followed the Rand philosophy in life. Aamir Khan has been known to have been a perfectionist. He doesn't care if the movie will take two years, he just has to make it right. He doesn't care about the critics, changes appearances like Depp. hink he is pretty perfect for the role.
However, Hrithik Roshan has been called a greek god too many times. Cannot be ignored.
You're dreaming. No A-list talent will go near Part 3 ESPECIALLY if they loved the book; to do so would be an act of altruistic self-sacrifice on their part. They're not stupid. They're very aware of the failure – commercially and critically – of Parts 1 and 2.
Wrong. Your comment fails to grasp that ALL films communicate a philosophical theory, not just THIS film. However, it's not the PURPOSE of a fiction film to lecture to the audience explicitly on philosophy (or on anything else). The purpose of a fiction film is to tell a story. PERIOD. The story will communicate the philosphical message.
Oh, and by the way: the more entertainingly the story is told, the more effectively the philosophical theory will be communicated. As filmmakers, you should be concentrating your efforts on TELLING THE STORY.
Therefore, the notion that the actors -- or the director, the cinematographer, the editor, the production coordinator, the honeywagon vendors, or kraft service -- must themselves believe in, or adhere to, the particular philosphy intended by the film's story, is not just silly; not just puerile; not just plain dumb; no, the attitude is far, far worse: it's UNPROFESSIONAL. And that's the worst insult in the entertainment biz.
>>A theory that should be practiced in life.
You clearly have never shot film, directed film, edited film, or written a screenplay. You've never even been on a set. You have precisely ZERO idea of what you're talking about. I would say "how sad", but given the generally declining intellectual abilities of Objectivists today compared to the 1970s, I say instead "how typically Objectivist."
I liked Paul Johansson from AS Part 1.
Brunette's good!
And one other thing... There is a *very* distinctive characteristic John has in the book... Emerald Green Eyes.
All in all - I would also throw in for Jim Caviezel - he IS a strong actor and the right age and IMO could do both the track worker Galt and the Inventor/leader Galt and make it believable.
...and if he is as good an actor as you claim, he will need to get deep into character... and it could be a come to 'conservative' moment.
So a film dealing with Christian themes requires a committed Christian to star in it; a WWII film dealing with Nazis needs to have actual Nazis in it . . . now, what about space alien films, eh? Do they require real space aliens, or do they simply require people who can act with lots of makeup and customes?
This is why the great majority of the world regards Objectivism as a cult: "You gotta be one of us if you're gonna pretend to be one of us in the movies!"
Right.
Load more comments...